Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Jul 2, 2011
my proposition was just to put several measurements onto one graph. you measure how you want and illustrate them accordingly. if it's only 3 graphs, then things are still relatively easy to interpret.Didn`t quite get Your thought.
My idea, when measuring one IEM, was to use 3 different coupler sizes/lengths for different ear sizes (small ears, medium ears and large ears) not just by one averaged volume size and present those results in one FR graph (always for each IEM). So, for example I with small ear-canals with less volume could look at S-size ears FR graph to get more accurate information for my small ears. I know that I get more deeper fit and have noticeably less volume in my ear-canals, so that "8kHz peak" is much further high up the FR than average ppl with medium sized ear-canals hear. I have to "translate" many graphs to my perspective to get an idea how that IEM would be for me and by that I get pretty inaccurate result. And it is hard for me to explain my different experience from general "consensus".
but having a standard for 3 positions when we can't even agree on one, I'm not optimistic.